> > Summary > ------- > > The document appears "frozen in time" -- a time when there were many > competing voices in the group, many ideas that were not fully fleshed > out, and little consensus. > > What I would expect from the UCR: > Use cases that motivate and illustrate the proposed Phase I technical > solution (FLD/BLD and XML/RDF/OWL integration). Some consistency > amongst the use cases, including using the same syntax (some simplified > FLD presentation syntax) and describing how to access XML or RDF data as > frames. > > What I get upon reading the UCR: > Use cases with little consistency amongst themselves (not guided by the > same solution) and that claim to motivate a questionable hierarchy of > "critical success factors". The document is useless as a tutorial or > primer to the technical specification. > > We have enough capability in our technical solution (FLD/PRD and semweb > integration), that with a bit of hand-waving about translating xml > schema to frame axioms, we can represent almost all the use cases in FLD > (there is 1 use case involving production rules). The pity is that from > the UCR document one arrives at the opposite conclusion: that we are > struggling to organize the problem space (and hence the foray into > critical success factors). So you would recommend against publishing UCR until some serious re-writing is done? -- SandroReceived on Tuesday, 25 March 2008 01:57:22 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:47 GMT